The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

to be the founder of more than two major lineages, each with a uniquely definable set of mutations. The phylogenetic tree of Hallast et al. (2015) included a 3-way polytomy between the members of Y chromosome macrohaplogroup K (which includes our groups L/T, O/N, and Q/R), with three main branches, each leading to two of these haplogroups. We identified a SNV that separates L/T from N/O/Q/R: rs2033003/M526, where an A→C mutation led to the latter branches. This was confirmed by Chiaroni et al. (2009), who had earlier identified this as a branch point between these haplogroups, and recently by Poznik et al. (2016). However, even though this resolved into a dichotomy between L/T and N/O/Q/R, the ancestor of L/T is but one mutation away from the ancestor of the others. This was not evident in the earlier SNV data and was only revealed with full-chromosome sequencing. The summary tree given by Poznik et al. (2016) is helpful, but they report only the most basal mutations for each branch, and so it is not always apparent how close the ancestors of these groups are. Y chromosome haplogroups G and H are also separated by a single mutation. Poznik et al. (2013) resolved a complex 3-way polytomy previously found here. They claimed that a single substitution at rs73614810/M578, a C→T transition, separates haplogroup G from haplogroup H/I/J/K. Even more recently, Poznik et al. (2016) split the phylogeny here with variant M201 leading to G and variant M578 leading to H/I/J/K. We also confirmed this. The Y sequence data does not cover the entire chromosome. It is obvious that additional mutations are waiting to be observed in the not-yet-sequenced sections, and so further separation among the haplotypes might be made in the future. Likewise, we have not considering indels, inversions, duplications, etc. Including these additional features might allow for more refined clade separation. However, additional data are not expected to change the basic patterns we are seeing. It is abundantly clear that major haplogroup ancestors are closely related, as the biblical model would predict. The mitochondrial data displays much more polytomy. This is not evident in the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2) until one realizes the most closely-spaces branches are closer than one mutation length. In other words, they actually have zero differences. This means that multiple female lines branched off nearly instantaneously from one or a few founding females. Unlike the situation with the Y chromosome, the mitochondrial data are complete. There are no hidden variants among the people sampled. Adding more sequences might reveal previously unknown branches in the family tree, as occurred recently with the Y chromosome (Mendez et al. 2013), but hundreds of thousands of mitochondrial sequences have been analyzed to date and so this is Carter et al. ◀ Y Chromosome Noah and mitochondrial Eve ▶ 2018 ICC 141 Figure 9. Histogram of the distances (in standard deviations) of all Y chromosome sequences to their respective founder. The data are fitted with a normal distribution centered on 0 with a standard deviation of 1.5. Figure 10. Histogram of the distances (in standard deviations) of all mitochondrial chromosome sequences to their respective founde r. Figure 11 . Histogram of all “private” Y chromosome mutations. The more closely-related the individuals are in the sample, the fewer private mutations will be discovered in the data. Figure 12. Y chromosome minor allele frequency histogram.